Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend for her terrific work representing American workers. I yield to my friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, at a White House news conference 2 weeks ago, President Bush called on Congress to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement this summer. Last week in this Chamber, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the most powerful Republican in the House, promised a vote by July 4. Well, he actually promised a vote last year, and then he promised a vote again in May, but this time he means it, I think, and we are going to actually vote on this by July 4. I am joined tonight by the gentleman from Niles, Trumbull County, Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and the gentlewoman from Toledo, Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), two of my colleagues from my State; and there will be the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and others coming along later. Mr. Speaker, many of us who have been speaking out against the Central American Free Trade Agreement have a message for the President, and that is we should renegotiate CAFTA. President Bush signed CAFTA more than a year ago. Every trade agreement negotiated by this administration has been ratified by Congress within 2 months of its signing. Australia, Singapore, Chile, Morocco, each of those trade agreements the President signed was passed, was ratified, was voted on by Congress within a couple of months. CAFTA, however, has languished in Congress for more than a year without a vote because this wrong-headed trade agreement offends both Republicans and Democrats. It offends small manufacturers and labor. It offends environmentalists and food safety advocates. It offends religious organizations in Central America and in our country. But most importantly, Mr. Speaker, look at what our trade policy has brought us. In 1992 the United States trade deficit, in other words, how much we import versus how much we export, our trade deficit was $38 billion, the year I first ran for Congress, in 1992. Last year this trade deficit was $618 billion. It went from $38 billion to $618 billion in literally a dozen years. It is hard to argue our trade policy is working when the deficit goes from $38 billion to $618 billion in just a dozen years. Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, the Senate Finance Committee is scheduled to take up CAFTA in what is called a mock markup. In tomorrow's mock markup, 10 legislators from Central America will attempt to offer statements on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Central Americans who oppose this dysfunctional cousin of the North American Free Trade Agreement. I say these legislators will ``attempt'' because they have not been asked nor, the word we get, will they be allowed to offer any official remarks at any hearings on CAFTA. Instead, the administration and CAFTA supporters in Congress crafted a one-sided plan to benefit multinational corporations at the expense of U.S. workers and businesses, U.S. farmers and ranchers, and Central American workers and businesses and Central America's farmers and ranchers. Opponents to CAFTA know it is simply an extension of NAFTA, which clearly, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has pointed out on this floor for a dozen years, has not worked for our country. It is the same old story, Mr. Speaker. Every time there is a trade agreement, the President says it will mean more jobs for the U.S., it will mean increased manufacturing in the U.S., increased exports of American-produced goods to other countries, and better wages for developing countries. But look at this chart, Mr. Speaker. The States here in red are States that in the last 5 years have lost 20 percent of their manufacturing. Michigan, 210,000 jobs, more than 20 percent of their manufacturing base; Illinois, 224,000; Ohio, 216,000; Pennsylvania, 200,000 jobs; North Carolina, 228,000; Mississippi and Alabama combined, about 130,000 jobs. In State after State after State, we have lost 20 percent of our manufacturing base. In many of the other States, we have lost thousands of jobs also. So they continue to promise more jobs, more manufacturing, more exports, a higher standard of living in the developing world. But with every trade agreement, their promises fall by the wayside in favor of big business interests that send U.S. jobs overseas and exploit cheap labor abroad. In the face of overwhelming bipartisan opposition, the administration and Republican leadership have tried every trick in the book to pass this CAFTA. As I said earlier, we in this body could agree on a Central American Free Trade Agreement, but not one that is tilted against American workers, not one that is tilted against workers in Central America, not one that is tilted for the drug industry and against the environment and against worker rights. But this year, because nothing else seems to be working in convincing Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, the administration is linking CAFTA to helping democracy in the developing world. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Zoellick, both have said CAFTA will help in the War on Terror. I am not sure how. They have never really explained that. But that is what they claim. Ten years of NAFTA, Mr. Speaker, has done nothing to improve border security between Mexico and the United States; so that argument does not wash. Then in May, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in one of their famous junkets that we hear more and more about from some of our friends in this body, flew the six presidents from Central America and the Dominican Republic around our country, hoping they might be able to sell CAFTA to newspaper editors, to our country's voters, to our country's Congress. They flew to Albuquerque. The Chamber of Commerce flew these six presidents to Albuquerque and to Los Angeles; to New York; to Miami; to Cincinnati, my home State of Ohio. Again they failed. And after the trip, the Costa Rican President broke off from the group and announced that his country would not ratify CAFTA unless an independent commission could determine the agreement will not hurt the working poor. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have seen demonstration after demonstration in Central America, 45 demonstrations with more than 150,000 workers, opposing this agreement. Some of their Presidents might be for it, some of them might be, but their workers certainly are not. In this case, this was in Guatemala, when the police went up against 8,000 workers, two of these workers were killed by their country's security forces. Now the administration is trying something different. They have opened up the bank. Desperate after failing to gin up support for the agreement based on its merits, CAFTA supporters now are attempting to buy votes with fantastic promises. If history is any example, should the promises fail, they will try and force votes their way with outrageous threats. Instead of wasting time with toothless side deals, U.S. Trade Ambassador Portman should negotiate a CAFTA that will actually pass Congress. Republicans and Democrats, small manufacturers and labor groups, farmers, ranchers, faith-based groups in all seven countries, religious leaders, environmental human rights organizations and workers are all speaking with one voice: Renegotiate CAFTA; give us a CAFTA, but one very different from this. This CAFTA will not enable Central American workers to buy cars made in the district of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) or the district of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur.) They will not enable Central American workers to buy software developed in Seattle, or prime beef in Nebraska. A Nicaraguan worker, Mr. Speaker, earns $2,800 a year. The combined economic output of the Central American nations is equivalent to that of Columbus, Ohio, or New Haven, Connecticut, or Orlando, Florida, or Memphis, Tennessee. Workers in the United States make $38,000 a year on average. Workers in Costa Rica make $9,000; Dominican Republic, $6,000; Nicaragua and Honduras, the average makes significantly less than $3,000 a year. They are not going to buy the cars made in the district of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) or the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). They are not going to buy steel made in my district. They are not going to buy apparel made in North Carolina. They are not going to buy software from Seattle, or prime beef from Kansas. They simply cannot afford to do this. This CAFTA is not about exporting American products. It is about U.S. companies moving plants to Honduras, paying $2,600 a year; outsourcing jobs to El Salvador, where workers make less than $5,000; exporting cheap labor in Guatemala where workers make $4,000 a year. Mr. Speaker, when the world's poorest people can buy American products and not just make them, then we will know that our trade policies are working. Mr. Speaker, we should renegotiate; defeat this Central American Free Trade Agreement, start again and renegotiate a CAFTA that will lift up workers and environmental standards in all the involved countries. I would like to yield to my friend from Toledo, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and thank her for her terrific work for years on trade issues.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, the administration, desperate after a series of failed attempts to gin up support for the Central America Free Trade Agreement, now has resorted to making all sorts of fantastic promises: bridges, highways and other pork projects, and outrageous threats. The Washington Post reported yesterday that Tom Donohue, President of the United States Chamber of Commerce, warned a group of Hill leaders and business people, ``If you are going to vote against it, it is going to cost you.'' We know from past experience that if CAFTA comes to the House floor, it will come in the middle of the night, when votes are held open, threats are made on the House floor and a one-vote margin is secured to force through what most of us in Congress agree is bad policy. Fast track won by only one vote. The same Mr. Donohue said back then, ``A one-vote margin is all that we could afford.'' Madam Speaker, this agreement has languished in Congress for more than a year. It is time for the President and Ambassador Portman to stop wasting time with toothless, meaningless side deals. It is time to renegotiate a better Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the good work of my friend, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Committee on Appropriations passed an amendment to prevent the U.S. trade representative from using trade pacts as a tool to block prescription drug reimportation. The fact that appropriators in this body felt compelled to take this dramatic step points to a larger issue. Congress should not have to police the U.S. trade representative to make sure he or she is acting in the best interests of U.S. consumers. We should not have to instruct our trade representative to make sure that he is looking out for U.S. workers and U.S. manufacturers. We should not have to tell the trade representative to protect the environment and our food supply. Congress should not have to scour every trade pact to make sure that some patent extension or importation barrier or other Big Government crutch designed specifically for the drug industry has not been inserted into the trade agreement by the U.S. trade representative or by the President or by my friends on the other side of the aisle. Congress should not have to take the U.S. trade representative to task for trying to reverse the world's progress against the global AIDS epidemic, progress partially financed with U.S. tax dollars. Congress should not have to fight the U.S. trade representative in order to ensure jobs for our Nation's workforce, affordable medicine for our Nation's consumers, and manufacturing capacity for our Nation's protection. Who does the U.S. trade representative work for? The USTR should be acting in the interest of all Americans. If the international drug industry benefits too, all the better. Instead, the multinational drug industry's interests trump those every day of everyday Americans. The tail is wagging the dog. In fact, our trade representative's office includes a position, and I am not making this up, our trade representative's office includes a position called U.S. Trade Representative for Asia, Pacific and Pharmaceutical Policies. So we are bringing the drug industry into the USTR to make sure these trade agreements protect the drug industry, usually at the expense of American consumers who pay twice as much, three times as much, four times as much for prescription drugs, and even more seriously, frankly, who harm the world's poorest people. In the CAFTA agreement, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) said earlier, in Africa, in Asia, the world's poorest people have to pay more for prescription drugs because the U.S. has, in our trade representative's office, a U.S. trade representative for Asia, Pacific and pharmaceutical policy. It begs the question, What are our trade agreements for? Mr. Speaker, it is not like they are working. Look what has happened to our trade deficit in the last 12 years. I came to Congress in 1992. We had a trade deficit of $38 billion. In 2004, 12 years later, our trade deficit was $618 billion. From $38 billion to $618 billion, and my friends are arguing our trade policy is working? Look at our stagnating wages, the fact that the top 10 percent of people in this society are doing very well. Their incomes are going up and up and up. The 90 percent of the rest of the country, their wages are stagnant and partly because of trade policies. Look at our crippling job loss in my State, and especially in manufacturing. Not only has our trade deficit gone from $38 billion to $618 billion in only a dozen years, look at what has happened in manufacturing. The States in red have all lost 20 percent of their manufacturing in the last 5 years. My State of Ohio, 216; Pennsylvania, 200; Michigan, 210; Alabama and Mississippi combined, 130; Illinois, 225; Virginia, 80,000; New York, 220,000. Our trade policy, Mr. Speaker, simply is not working. When Members think about this, maybe in fact some people would say our trade agreements are working. After all, these trade agreements do work for the pharmaceutical industry.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My remarks will be brief. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) for his support. We all know the importance of antibiotics to our public health, beginning some 60 years ago with penicillin and other antibiotics. We also know the increasing problem of antibiotic resistance in people who have not been cured because of their resistance to antibiotics that have been administered to them. This amendment says the USDA can only buy chicken products for school nutrition programs if it complies with the requirement of existing law that foods purchased for these programs be ``wholesome,'' meaning protected from antibiotic resistance. This amendment tells the USDA that we are serious, this Congress is serious about protecting the American people from the dangers of antibiotic resistance. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment. On March 14, 1942, the world changed. A woman named Anne Miller had been hospitalized in New Haven, Connecticut, for more than a month with a strep infection. Every conventional treatment had failed, and doctors feared she would not last the day. But then, Anne Miller got an experimental injection of a new medicine called Penicillin. And in just over 12 hours, her temperature had returned to normal. A half-century ago, America's hospitals were jammed with patients suffering from strep, pneumonia, meningitis, typhoid fever, rheumatic fever, and other killers. Penicillin and other antibiotics allowed us to bring these lethal infections under control and save millions of lives. These new miracle drugs changed the world. But a new danger--antibiotic resistance--is threatening to turn back the clock, by making the antibiotics we rely on ineffective. When an antibiotic is used on a person or animal, it may kill some of the bacteria, but it will not kill all of them. The survivors reproduce, propagating these hardier ``antibiotic resistant'' bacteria. Antibiotic resistance is a serious and growing public health problem: 38 Americans die every day from antibiotic resistant infections, according to the World Health Organization--some estimates suggest the number is more than twice that large; Antibiotic resistance costs America's health care system an estimated $4 billion every year; The Centers for Disease Control has called antibiotic resistance one of its ``top concerns'' Human medicine is partly to blame. Doctors are often pressured to overprescribe antibiotics, leading to the spread of resistance. And both the medical profession and the CDC have taken this seriously, with outreach campaigns to educate both doctors and patients about the dangers of antibiotic overuse. But animal agriculture is also to blame. About 70 percent of antibiotic use in America is not for people but for the cows, pigs, chickens, and other animals people eat. And about 70 percent of those antibiotics are not even used to treat sick animals, but to prevent illness or just to make healthy animals grow faster. And the overuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture has serious consequences. Fluoroquinolones--the class of antibiotics that includes Cipro--are an important example. Cipro, as we know all too well, is used to threat Anthrax. But Cipro is also used to treat infections by a foodborne bacterium called Campylobacter. The FDA approved fluoroquinolones for use in human medicine in 1986. And FDA approved fluoroquinolones for use in chickens in 1995. During the 9 years between 1986 and 1995, no more than 3 percent of Campylobacter cases in the U.S. involved resistant bacteria. But just 2 years after FDA approved fluoroquinolones for use in chickens, resistance in humans had jumped to 13 percent. By 2001, 19 percent of the Campylobacter infections in humans were antibiotic-resistant. The FDA has begun a response to this problem--by proposing to ban fluorquinolone use in poultry. But the company that makes them has sued, and litigation could take several years to resolve. Private industry also has recognized the problem. Leading fast food chains like McDonald's and Wendy's have told their suppliers they will not buy products made from chickens raised with fluoroquinolones. And leading chicken producers like Tyson, Gold Kist, and Purdue have also committed to stop using fluoruoquinolones. But the National School Lunch Program lags behind, and the USDA still buys our children chicken raised with fluoroquinolones. Congress acted in 2004--adding report language of the FY2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill that asked USDA to initiate ``a policy to not purchase chickens for these programs from companies that do not have a stated policy that they do not use fluoroquinolones in their chickens.'' That language was approved by a bipartisan majority in this House. It was approved by a bipartisan majority in the Senate. And the bill accompanying it was signed by President Bush. Unfortunately--but not surprisingly--USDA did nothing to implement that provision. It is time for Congress to order USDA to step up to the plate. And that is exactly what my amendment does. Existing law requires that USDA take steps to ensure the wholesomeness of food delivered through school nutrition programs. If USDA actually applies that requirement when purchasing chicken products, I believe the agency will be unable to conclude that a substance FDA wants to take off the market because of public health concerns is wholesome. Last year, we asked the USDA to do the right thing. The USDA ignored our request. This year: tell the USDA that we are serious about protecting the American people from the dangers of antibiotic resistance; Let us pass this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Ohio for his commonsense amendment. If this Congress were not a captive of special interests, the Chabot/Brown amendment would pass unanimously. We in this body, we preach balanced budgets; yet we spent, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) said, $1 billion on this program, on this welfare program. We preach in this body prudent spending, yet we are suggesting spending $125 million for fiscal year 2006 on this program. We preach free enterprise in this body day after day after day, yet we are using government dollars to advertise on behalf of private interests. The Market Access Program, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) said, gives away $100 million annually to groups like the Catfish Institute, the Popcorn Institute, the Ginseng Board to market their products overseas. We encourage these organizations, these private for- profit or not-for-profit, it does not matter, we encourage them to advertise overseas if that helps their bottom line. But they should do it on their dime, not on the taxpayer's dime. It simply does not make sense. I know what budget cuts mean to my district in Cleveland when we have seen the cuts that happened to NASA and the kinds of job loss in my community. We have seen what Medicaid cuts cost in terms of quality health care. Yet we are going to spend $125 million on a program that clearly shows no real benefit to those organizations. If they did show benefit, they would be spending their own money. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Chabot amendment, to join National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Taxpayers For Common Sense, U.S. PIRG, and a whole host of other groups in passing this amendment.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, at a White House news conference last week President Bush, called on this Congress to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement this summer. This morning in this Chamber, next to me, the most powerful Republican in the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), once again promised a vote, this time by July 4. Actually, a month or so ago the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) promised that there would be a vote in May, but this time he says he actually means it. Mr. Speaker, those of us who have been speaking out against the Central American Free Trade Agreement have a message in return. Let us scrap this agreement. Clearly, this Congress does not support it. And let us renegotiate a better Central American Free Trade Agreement. President Bush signed this agreement fully 1 year and 2 weeks ago. Every trade agreement negotiated by this administration, Morocco, Singapore, Chile, Australia, all trade agreements negotiated by this administration have been ratified by Congress within 65 days of the President affixing his signature to them. CAFTA has languished in Congress now for 54 weeks without a vote because this wrong-headed trade agreement offends Republicans and Democrats alike. Just look at what has happened with our trade policy in the last decade. 1992, the year I ran for Congress, we had a trade deficit in this country of $38 billion. Today, a dozen years later, last year actually, in 2004, our trade deficit was $618 billion. From $38 billion, when the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and others of us in this Chamber opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement, from $38 billion a dozen years ago to $618 billion today. It is clear our trade policy is not working. Mr. Speaker, opponents of CAFTA know that it is simply an extension of the North American Free Trade Agreement, actually a dysfunctional cousin of NAFTA, which clearly did not work for our country. Look at the chart. Look at the number of jobs we have seen lost in this country as a result of trade policy. In the last 5 years, not all of these jobs are trade policy, but many of them are. In the last 5 years, the States in red have lost more than 20 percent of their manufacturing jobs. New York, 222,000. Pennsylvania 200,000. Ohio, 217,000. Michigan, 210,000. North and South Carolina, 306,000 combined. Alabama and Mississippi, another 125,000. State after State after State has lost hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs. It is the same old story. Every time there is a trade agreement, every time there is a trade agreement, the President says it will mean more jobs for Americans, it will mean more exports for the U.S., it will mean more manufacturing done in our country and selling those products overseas, and the President promises it will be better wages for workers in the developing countries. Mr. Speaker, Ben Franklin said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different outcome. The President makes the same promises on NAFTA, on PNTR, on trade promotion authority, the same promises, every trade agreement. And every time it comes out exactly the opposite. That is why there is overwhelming bipartisan opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Since then, the administration and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and Republican leadership have tried every trick in the book to pass CAFTA. The administration started off by linking CAFTA to helping democracy in the developing world. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick both have said CAFTA will help on the war on terrorism. I am not really sure why, but they said that we need to pass this agreement with Central America to help us in the war on terrorism. But we know 10 years of NAFTA has done nothing to improve security between Mexico and the United States, so that argument simply does not sell. In May, then, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce set up a junket for the six presidents from Central America and the Dominican Republic, taking them to Cincinnati and Los Angeles and Washington and Albuquerque and around the United States, hoping they might be able to sell the American people the press and the Congress on CAFTA. Again they failed. Earlier this year, the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and the Ways and Means Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), said there would be a vote on CAFTA by Memorial Day. Memorial Day came and went without a vote. Why? Because they did not have the votes. Now we have a new deadline for this failed trade agreement. It is July 4th. Mr. Speaker, Republicans and Democrats, business and labor groups, farmers, ranchers, faith-based groups, the National Council of Churches, the Latin American Council of Churches, churches, business groups, religious leaders environmental groups, all have said, if CAFTA countries and the U.S. renegotiate CAFTA, we can get a better agreement next time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, we just returned from 10 days in our district, and we found the opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement is even greater than before we left. People at home in our districts recognize our trade policy is not working. Just look at this chart. The first year I ran for Congress, our trade deficit was $38 billion. Today after NAFTA and PNTR and a series of trade agreements, our trade deficit is $618 billion. These trade agreements cost jobs. They hurt our families. They hurt our communities. They hurt our schools. Madam Speaker, we should renegotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement; defeat this bill when it comes to Congress; renegotiate a new Central American Free Trade Agreement, one that lifts up workers in all seven countries.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), my friend from the Sunshine State, and encourage people to travel to my State more often perhaps. As we head into summer months, it is crucial that Americans be aware of the risks involved in seemingly everyday activities: a day at the beach, a jog in the park, an afternoon out working in the yard. Overexposure to the sun's dangerous ultraviolet rays is a major risk and, largely because of increasing ozone depletion brought on in part by global warming, a bigger threat than ever to the public health. Every year in the United States there are nearly 60,000 new cases of melanoma, the most serious form of skin cancer. Nearly 8,000 die every year from this disease. When it comes to risk factors for skin cancer, and I quote from the American Cancer Society's list, ``unprotected and/or excessive exposure to ultraviolet radiation'' is at the top of that list. The sun's UV rays have been officially classified as a carcinogen by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Yet a national survey released yesterday shows that the number of people using sunscreen declined by over 10 percent last year even as skin cancer diagnoses continue to rise. In light of these troubling statistics, I am happy to support this resolution introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo). The resolution supports outreach and education efforts like National Sun Safety Week and the groups like the Sun Safety Alliance which work to keep the public informed of the risks of UV exposure. Sun Safety Alliance teams up health care professionals, educators, and corporate partners to focus on conveying this risk. When it comes to something as basic as being out in the sun, effective public awareness strategies are critical. One of the alliance's priorities is outreach to the youngest Americans. Children are at the highest risk of overexposure to UV rays. Most people receive some 80 percent of their lifetime sun exposure before their 18th birthday. It is essential that we shape and reinforce the right habits early. Madam Speaker, this resolution is an important step toward stopping an entirely preventable killer. Thousands of lives can be saved with the right understanding of what that prevention entails. I am pleased to support my colleagues and this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for the good years when we were colleagues on the Subcommittee on Health when he was the chairman and I was the ranking member and the good work we were able to do on most days. This resolution, as the gentleman points out, is not as important as some things. I would like to go a little further and talk about what all of this means in terms of global warming and some issues like that. I understand today is not the day to do that on this resolution. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, President Bush is asking this Congress to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement, a dysfunctional cousin of the North American Free Trade Agreement, in spite of the fact that our trade policy has failed. Twelve years ago, the U.S. had a $38 billion trade deficit. After NAFTA, China and a host of other trade agreements, our trade deficit is now $618 billion. Mr. Speaker, someone defined insanity as if you do the same thing over and over and over again, you expect a different outcome. It is clear our trade policy has failed. The Central American Free Trade Agreement, an extension of NAFTA, will continue the failed trade policy. We should pass trade agreements that lift up standards around the world, create jobs, both in the developing world and in the United States and change the direction of our trade policy.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the President and Republican leadership were going to ask this Chamber to vote on the Central America Free Trade Agreement this week, but apparently because it does not have the votes, they will ask us to vote on it in June or July or whenever. The administration continues, however, to mislead all of us with the wrong-headed notion that by exploiting the poor workers and promoting the agendas of the largest multinational corporations, that America will expand democracy and increase national security. If the administration is going to pursue this kind of illogical rhetoric, they should answer some questions for us. How do we promote national security by privatizing these poor nations' water systems and public services? How do we promote democracy by inserting provisions in the Central American Free Trade Agreement that call for secret international tribunals to make decisions affecting America's public health and safety laws, thereby undercutting and subverting America's sovereignty? How do we promote democracy by extending drug patents beyond U.S. law in Central America, making it more difficult for AIDS patients and the terminally ill in these nations to receive life-saving medicines? How do we promote democracy when pharmaceutical companies and other industries well connected to the Bush administration are granted a seat at the negotiating table while workers' representatives are excluded? More than 40 percent of workers in Central America earn less than $2 a day, putting them below the global poverty level. How does CAFTA ensure that wages will increase to benefit workers? If CAFTA helps workers, why does it allow the Central American nations to weaken or undercut their already substandard labor laws after the agreements is enacted? Why are trade sanctions an effective trade enforcement mechanism available for violations of intellectual priority provisions of agreement, but not for violations of labor and environmental provisions? In other words, why do we protect drug companies and not protect workers? While opponents of CAFTA gather by the hundreds in public places, elected Democrats, elected Republicans, union members, environmental groups, manufacturers, small farmers, ranchers, environmentalists, we meet out in the open, but CAFTA supporters hunker down behind closed doors to manipulate backdoor deals. With all the talk of democracy, why the secrecy, Mr. Speaker? Proponents of the status quo argue that free trade promotes democracy, but then they turn a blind eye to human rights abuses, to coerced labor, to slave labor, to child labor. Supporters of CAFTA conveniently fail to mention that democracy in Mexico recently suffered a severe setback when Mexico's legislatures voted to strip the popular Mayor of Mexico City, and their political rival, of official immunity on a technicality; the goal was to imprison him and knock him out of the 2006 election. The U.S. State Department remains silent. Mexico now ranks as one of the world's ten largest economies. While overall wealth increased since passing the North America Free Trade Agreement, poverty has also increased. In Mexico, 10 percent of the population controls 50 percent of the Nation's wealth and 50 percent of the nation's citizens live in poverty. That was the legacy of NAFTA, the dysfunctional cousin of CAFTA. There is no burgeoning middle class in Mexico, just another of NAFTA's failed promises. How can the administration say this income disparity and persistent inequality is progress. We promote democracy instead, Mr. Speaker, by ensuring prosperity for all, not just a select few. This CAFTA fails to do that. We protect our own borders and security by protecting workers and families in our sister countries by raising wages and improving their living standards. This CAFTA fails to do that. We help our neighbors at home and overseas by creating healthy and safe communities through worker protections and investments in the environment. This CAFTA fails to do that. We ensure democracy when we conduct trade negotiations openly and publicly, not by doing so behind closed doors and protecting the drug industry. CAFTA's negotiators failed to do that. This CAFTA fails to promote fair trade. It fails to protect workers and the environment. It fails to raise living standards either in the United States or in the Central America nations. I support trade with our good friends and neighbors in Central America. I strongly support trade with our friends and neighbors in Central America, but not this Central American Free Trade Agreement. This CAFTA is dead in the water. The President signed it a year ago. We still have not voted on it. It is time to renegotiate a better CAFTA, one that benefits all, not just a few, one that all Members of Congress and the American people can support.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we wonder, as most medical scientists wonder, why not both kinds of research. We in no way want to restrict it to just one or the other like my friends on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, Mr. Speaker, we will consider two bills that have significant bearing on the future of medicine and medical research in our country. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for their work on the first of these bills. The Smith-Barton legislation reauthorizes the National Bone Marrow Donor Program and adds a new national cord blood registry. Cord blood and bone marrow have several therapeutic uses in common: first and foremost, the treatment of blood diseases. Coordinating these two registries makes sense for patients, for doctors, and for the public health. With this kind of coordinated program, there will be a single entry point for transplant doctors and their patients to locate available cord blood units. This bill also increases outreach and education efforts so that we can amass the most diverse possible reserves of cord blood. It improves data keeping and distribution so that necessary blood gets to patients as quickly and as accurately as possible. In addition to the therapeutic uses of cord blood, this bill makes cord blood stem cells available for research purposes. There is clearly therapeutic potential in the use of cord blood and adult stem cells. Some of the most important research in this area is taking place in Ohio, in northeast Ohio, where I call home, at the National Center for Regenerative Medicine, a partnership of Case Western Reserve University hospitals, and the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland. I mentioned we will be considering two bills today that have significant bearing on the future of medicine. And it is in the research area that the distinctions between these two bills takes on the greatest significance. Smith-Barton focuses on cord-blood and adult stem cell research. In the Castle-DeGette bipartisan bill, it focuses on embryonic stem cell research. That is a critical distinction, and the House needs to acknowledge that. Cord-blood and adult stem cell research are not substitutes for embryonic stem cell research. They are not alternative avenues to the same medical outcomes. Each type of research holds unique potential. For example, while adult stem cells represent an important advance in the treatment of blood disorders, these cells simply do not occur in every tissue in the body. Because there are no adult stem cells, for example, in the pancreas, the potential of adult stem cells to develop into therapies for a disease like diabetes is very limited. That is one example of many. Embryonic stem cell, on the other hand, can grow into any type of cell in the body, making potential use of these far more diverse and far more valuable. We should not minimize the importance of cord-blood and adult stem cell research, but by the same token, we shouldn't mislead the public into believing that if Smith-Barton passes, the Castle-DeGette bill is unnecessary, because surely it is not. It is irresponsible and even dangerous for Members of this body to distort the value of one form of research in order to stifle another promising avenue of research. We in this Congress have a responsibility to support medical research and to foster its development, as the committee of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) committee has done well over time. Millions of lives have been saved and improved because of the brilliant research conducted in this country. We also have a responsibility to speak honestly about that research and its potential. Both sides of this debate owe it to the public to draw clear lines between the beliefs we hold and the facts that hold, regardless of what we believe. The fact is that cord-blood research, adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research are not interchangeable. The fact is, if we invest in all three types of research, we may finally be able to find cures for debilitating illnesses, cures that are currently beyond our reach. The fact is, if the U.S. withholds funding for embryonic stem cell research, that research will continue, just at a significantly slower pace. People that you and I know, they may be friends, they may be family members, they may be professional colleagues, will suffer and die from potentially curable illnesses while we wait for the rest of the world to fill our shoes. Researchers in other nations, researchers in private institutions in this country, are pursuing embryonic stem cell research because they know that it is possible to accomplish this research in an ethical manner. Embryonic stem cell research does not and need not increase the number of embryos that are destroyed. Instead, it decreases the number of embryos that are destroyed in vain. We will have an opportunity today to pass two pieces of legislation, both are important, that will deliver hope to patients whose futures depend on new answers to life and death medical questions. Our Nation cannot pick and choose between cord-blood research and adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research if we want to answer all these questions, unless we want to offer hope to some and sympathy to others. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote in favor of both the Smith-Barton bill and the Castle-DeGette bill. Doing so will show that what you know and what you believe intersects at the point where medical progress is harnessed to alleviate untold human suffering. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui). (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend 2 remarks.)

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1-\1/4\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share the words from the President who seems to have sent a different message than my friends on the other side of the aisle. President Bush said, ``Most scientists believe that research on embryonic stem cells offers the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body.'' I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle argue that we really only need cord blood stem cell research, that that will lead us to all that we need. And the President said about that, that ``No adult stem cell has been shown in culture to be pluripotent.'' And he said, ``Embryonic stem cells have the potential to develop into all or nearly all of the tissues in the body.'' I then hear my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about research, that this is going to lead to so much more research. Yet at the same time we have seen no increase, flat-lined spending, budgeting on the National Institutes of Health, something that many of us, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and many of the rest of us, have thought we should increase spending on, medical research all across the board in all kinds of medical research. Yes, in order to make room for the President's tax cuts that have gone overwhelmingly to the wealthiest in our country, we have simply cut medical research and not done what we should as a Nation do overall in medical research. So when I hear my friends talk on this, I do not quite get how this will expand medical research while closing out one whole avenue of medical research and, at the same time, cutting spending on what we should be doing to move our country ahead.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have two remaining speakers.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.